get_earnings_analytics

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read of two parallel histories and the limit param hints at pagination up to 100 rows each, but it never states whether results are capped, whether the histories are aligned by period, or anything about auth or return shape. Adequate-but-thin for a no-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise given what it omits.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the bar is modest and the description covers the returned data. It still leaves the dual-history structure and limit semantics unstated in prose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both symbol and limit are already documented in the schema, including the 1-100 range. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and its contents: earnings surprise history plus analyst estimate history. That is far more informative than a tautology, but it never distinguishes this from the adjacent get_earning_dates or get_recommendations siblings, so an agent still has to guess at the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical sibling get_earning_dates. The agent is left to infer the intended scenario from the noun phrases alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.